The hold-up appears to be the result of manufacturing techniques used to make the new iMac's aluminum shell. According to Macbidouille, Apple is employing a high-pressure welding technique similar to that used to assemble wings for aircraft such as the Airbus A380. Applying the technique to a mass-produced computer may have presented unforeseen problems, slowing down the planned assembly.

Apple said last month that 21.5-inch iMac models would ship in November, and that 27-inch models would follow in December. We asked Apple if the company expected any delays, but we did not receive a response as of Thursday morning.

As most users had expected updated iMac models earlier in the year when Intel released its Ivy Bridge processors, any extra delay could be problematic for Apple. The iMac represents the majority of Apple's desktop sales, and it was expected to boost overall Mac sales for the company's latest fiscal quarter; sales for the quarter ending in September were flat year-over-year.

95 Reader Comments

On one hand, it’s sad that Apple allegedly has so many production problems given the supposed supply-chain “genius” who is now CEO.

On the other hand, it’s probably just a byproduct of Apple’s innovation. They are doing things that have never been done before on a massive scale, and dragging manufacturing processes into the future as they do it.

Edit: spellin'

Edit II: When I say 'innovation,' I'm not referring to taking the same product and making it thinner and lighter, I'm referring to all the things that must be done to achieve those thin & light characteristics. New and innovative logic board design, cooling design, energy efficiency, manufacturing processes, etc. Each are innovations, even if the final product, on the outside, is merely a thinner and lighter model of an existing product.

Innovation? I mean, I guess anything new is in some sense innovation, but the feature that these welds allows is a thinner, lighter machine, even though it is designed to be put on a desk and stay there. Thin and light is great, but at what cost?

I guess Apple is in a financial position to afford not to sell any iMacs for a few months. But it still strikes me as a high price to pay for a feature that's basically just bragging rights, and cheaper shipping costs, and not something customers will actually benefit much from.

On one hand, it’s sad that Apple allegedly has so many production problems given the supposed supply-chain “genius” who is now CEO.

On the other hand, it’s just a byproduct of Apple’s innovation. They are doing things that have never been done before on a massive scale, and dragging manufacturing processes into the future as they do it.

Edit: spellin'

This is why you should always do test runs of a sufficient scale to figure out where you will have problems well before hand. Sounds like someone didn't do the needed testing and simply gave assurances it could be done. Similar to the scratching issues on the iphone 5. Everyone runs into issues when new lines are first setup, testing before you go to mass production helps you solve the issues early though.

This is why you should always do test runs of a sufficient scale to figure out where you will have problems well before hand. Sounds like someone didn't do the needed testing and simply gave assurances it could be done. Similar to the scratching issues on the iphone 5. Everyone runs into issues when new lines are first setup, testing before you go to mass production helps you solve the issues early though.

But if you're trying to "double down" on security, you cant do mass production prior to an announcement because someone on the Asian side of the supply chain will leak the new product and spoil the surprise.

Innovation? I mean, I guess anything new is in some sense innovation, but the feature that these welds allows is a thinner, lighter machine, even though it is designed to be put on a desk and stay there. Thin and light is great, but at what cost?

I guess Apple is in a financial position to afford not to sell any iMacs for a few months. But it still strikes me as a high price to pay for a feature that's basically just bragging rights, and cheaper shipping costs, and not something customers will actually benefit much from.

I don't get what your point is. Having a ultra thin desktop machine is not innovation? You don't have to appreciate it for it to be "innovation". Let the market decide whether it's worthy for a product to have such characteristics. No one cares what you think. That's how capitalism works. The voice of all customers, not the minority.

They also made iPhone ultra light and thin. If people don;t like it. Don't buy it. It's that simple. Even you can agree with that right?

Innovation? I mean, I guess anything new is in some sense innovation, but the feature that these welds allows is a thinner, lighter machine, even though it is designed to be put on a desk and stay there. Thin and light is great, but at what cost?

I guess Apple is in a financial position to afford not to sell any iMacs for a few months. But it still strikes me as a high price to pay for a feature that's basically just bragging rights, and cheaper shipping costs, and not something customers will actually benefit much from.

I don't get what your point is. Having a ultra thin desktop machine is not innovation? You don't have to appreciate it for it to be "innovation". Let the market decide whether it's worthy for a product to have such characteristics. No one cares what you think. That's how capitalism works. The voice of all customers, not the minority.

They also made iPhone ultra light and thin. If people don;t like it. Don't buy it. It's that simple. Even you can agree with that right?

Making something even thinner might be a nice feature, but it's not a new one. Hence why it wouldn't be considered "innovative". Sales numbers just mean it's popular. As for "high price to pay", he's referring to the manufacturing failures and the lack of any iMac sales for 2 months being a high price to pay for taking a risk with a new manufacturing technique, not the cost of the iMac itself

Making something even thinner might be a nice feature, but it's not a new one. Hence why it wouldn't be considered "innovative". Sales numbers just mean it's popular. As for "high price to pay", he's referring to the manufacturing failures and the lack of any iMac sales for 2 months being a high price to pay for taking a risk with a new manufacturing technique, not the cost of the iMac itself

If every iMac is your definition of "innovative", you'll have a iMac 3D by now. According to your ridiculous logic, transistor is 50years ago, so everything since then is not innovative. Right ....

Manufacturing failures? First problem comes along we call it failure. Every company have problems from time to time ... calm down.

It's sad to beat people when they are down. We'll talk again the next quarter earning call .... you guys are a hoot!

We asked Apple if the company expected any delays, but we did not receive a response [...]"

I thought Ars is meant to publish news

In all seriousness, to the Ars staff:I have the impression that Apple practically never responds to any questions before they reach the importance to be covered all over non-tech media and then never to specific magazines.How often does Apple really respond to any questions that are about non-positive things concerning them? Is just my impression wrong or the tendency not as strong as perceived?

Concerning "innovation"

These days everything gets called innovation. It's a trend, like prefacing anything with "X-" a couple of years ago. Things don't get better and they are not improved, they are innovated. Going by this sense of the word, making the edges of something thinner, that never moves and doesn't take less room because of this, is innovation.

If you try to use that term only for "real" innovations, that alter things in a way that makes them substantially different, this is not innovation. It just looks a bit cooler.Putting screens in a tablet with a pixel density high enough to water the border between the display and things printed out, that is innovation. Producing something like the iPad in the first place, that is innovation.

Well, this should at least help prop up sales for the new Mac Mini, which turned out to be a potent little thing. iMacs not being available during the holiday season, though? Eeesh! Glad I'm not the dude in charge of that whole debacle. I'm sure somebody's getting ripped a new one this morning.

Innovation? I mean, I guess anything new is in some sense innovation, but the feature that these welds allows is a thinner, lighter machine, even though it is designed to be put on a desk and stay there. Thin and light is great, but at what cost?

Lower warehouse, inventory, manufacturing, and shipping costs. Reducing size and weight by a third correspondingly reduces all of the above by a third as well.

Put another way, Apple retail averages $6k per square foot. Now imagine that they can now create stores that are even smaller, thanks to smaller inventory requirements and it means they can pay less lease, open stores in smaller locations (such as smaller malls), or in their larger stores, stuff more varied inventory. Instead of dedicating 1,000 cubic feet to iMacs they can now store them in 700 cubic feet and stock, say, an additional 14,000 iPhones.

Quote:

I guess Apple is in a financial position to afford not to sell any iMacs for a few months. But it still strikes me as a high price to pay for a feature that's basically just bragging rights, and cheaper shipping costs, and not something customers will actually benefit much from.

It's their secret sauce to retail success. The less space their products take, the more product and product variety they can keep in store, the more they can dedicate their store to selling and not storing, and the smaller retail space/lease they can get away with.

We asked Apple if the company expected any delays, but we did not receive a response [...]"

Concerning "innovation"

These days everything gets called innovation. It's a trend, like prefacing anything with "X-" a couple of years ago. Things don't get better and they are not improved, they are innovated. Going by this sense of the word, making the edges of something thinner, that never moves and doesn't take less room because of this, is innovation.

The manufacturing technique Apple uses is innovative. While it's value may be low in an iMac, imagine the lessons they learn here get applied to the next MacBook Air or MacBook Pro? The value add in that instance wouldn't be thinner (though of course that will happen), its that instead of two pieces of aluminum secured with screws you get a single chunk of fused solid aluminum. Currently the base plate on the MacBook Air or Pro adds little strength to the design; too many screw holes and you weaken the plate, too few screw holes and you don't distribute enough stress from the body to the plate.

Welding it removes both problems. Now you can use thinner, lighter, aluminum cases for an equivalent strength. Who knows, maybe now they can re-introduce a 17" MacBook Pro now that they can make the case sufficiently strong to hold 4 pounds of batteries.

Quote:

If you try to use that term only for "real" innovations, that alter things in a way that makes them substantially different, this is not innovation. It just looks a bit cooler.

Innovation merely requires it to be new. There's no requirement that innovation be radical.

Quote:

Putting screens in a tablet with a pixel density high enough to water the border between the display and things printed out, that is innovation. Producing something like the iPad in the first place, that is innovation.

So is using a new manufacturing technique that allows you to make new products not possible with previous techniques, or to improve previous products; this could, in theory, allow Apple to shave say 6 ounces from their existing MacBook Pros and their super sized batteries. This might allow them to create a Retina 17" and 11" MacBook Pros, and reduce the weight of the 13" sufficiently that the Air gets canceled.

Innovation? I mean, I guess anything new is in some sense innovation, but the feature that these welds allows is a thinner, lighter machine, even though it is designed to be put on a desk and stay there. Thin and light is great, but at what cost?

Lower warehouse, inventory, manufacturing, and shipping costs. Reducing size and weight by a third correspondingly reduces all of the above by a third as well.

Put another way, Apple retail averages $6k per square foot. Now imagine that they can now create stores that are even smaller, thanks to smaller inventory requirements and it means they can pay less lease, open stores in smaller locations (such as smaller malls), or in their larger stores, stuff more varied inventory. Instead of dedicating 1,000 cubic feet to iMacs they can now store them in 700 cubic feet and stock, say, an additional 14,000 iPhones.

Quote:

I guess Apple is in a financial position to afford not to sell any iMacs for a few months. But it still strikes me as a high price to pay for a feature that's basically just bragging rights, and cheaper shipping costs, and not something customers will actually benefit much from.

It's their secret sauce to retail success. The less space their products take, the more product and product variety they can keep in store, the more they can dedicate their store to selling and not storing, and the smaller retail space/lease they can get away with.

Put another way, Apple retail averages $6k per square foot. Now imagine that they can now create stores that are even smaller, thanks to smaller inventory requirements and it means they can pay less lease, open stores in smaller locations (such as smaller malls), or in their larger stores, stuff more varied inventory. Instead of dedicating 1,000 cubic feet to iMacs they can now store them in 700 cubic feet and stock, say, an additional 14,000 iPhones.

This is all assuming that the packaging will be that much smaller. It's quite a stretch to make any assumption that Apple will be putting them in significantly smaller packages.

The aluminum casing wasn't done for manufacturing/shipping/inventory. It was done to increase sales.

On one hand, it’s sad that Apple allegedly has so many production problems given the supposed supply-chain “genius” who is now CEO.

On the other hand, it’s just a byproduct of Apple’s innovation. They are doing things that have never been done before on a massive scale, and dragging manufacturing processes into the future as they do it.

And still, for the most part, pulling it off, so why the little "dig" at Cook? Anything new is going to have growing pains and glitches.

Innovation? I mean, I guess anything new is in some sense innovation, but the feature that these welds allows is a thinner, lighter machine, even though it is designed to be put on a desk and stay there. Thin and light is great, but at what cost?

Lower warehouse, inventory, manufacturing, and shipping costs. Reducing size and weight by a third correspondingly reduces all of the above by a third as well.

Put another way, Apple retail averages $6k per square foot. Now imagine that they can now create stores that are even smaller, thanks to smaller inventory requirements and it means they can pay less lease, open stores in smaller locations (such as smaller malls), or in their larger stores, stuff more varied inventory. Instead of dedicating 1,000 cubic feet to iMacs they can now store them in 700 cubic feet and stock, say, an additional 14,000 iPhones.

Quote:

I guess Apple is in a financial position to afford not to sell any iMacs for a few months. But it still strikes me as a high price to pay for a feature that's basically just bragging rights, and cheaper shipping costs, and not something customers will actually benefit much from.

It's their secret sauce to retail success. The less space their products take, the more product and product variety they can keep in store, the more they can dedicate their store to selling and not storing, and the smaller retail space/lease they can get away with.

Not to mention the positive environmental effects.

Give me a break... Apple does not create ANYTHING out of recycled aluminum.... There are tech industry leaders who do make many devices out of recycled plastics, IE konica minolta...

Put another way, Apple retail averages $6k per square foot. Now imagine that they can now create stores that are even smaller, thanks to smaller inventory requirements and it means they can pay less lease, open stores in smaller locations (such as smaller malls), or in their larger stores, stuff more varied inventory. Instead of dedicating 1,000 cubic feet to iMacs they can now store them in 700 cubic feet and stock, say, an additional 14,000 iPhones.

This is all assuming that the packaging will be that much smaller. It's quite a stretch to make any assumption that Apple will be putting them in significantly smaller packages.

It's no stretch at all. They've been reducing all packaging sizes for over a decade now. 2006 17" iMac had a box 22"x20"x10" (4400 ci) and the 24" iMac had a box of 27"x24"x10" (6480 ci). The 2011 21" iMac had a box is 25"x22"x7" (3850 ci) and the 27" iMac had a box 31"x24"x10" (7440 ci).

So going from 17" to 21", Apple reduced packaging by almost 600 cubic inches, while the 24" to 27" iMac only increased volume by 1000 cubic inches. I imagine the newer 2012 27" iMac is going to drop from 10" think to 8" think, reducing the volume to 5952 ci, which is 500 ci less than the 2006 24" iMac.

Now, again, extend this to their warehouse, cargo ship, fedex truck, and store backroom. Over the last 6 years then they will have been able to stuff approximately an extra $3k per cubic foot this way, and sell it. Instead of fitting 4 iMacs in a given space they can now fit 5. Instead of saying to a customer, "I'm sorry, we're out of stock", they can say, "Here you go, it's the last one".

Or, instead of fitting a fifth iMac into any particular spot, they can shove in an additional 12 iPads or 16 iPad minis, and sell those; that is an additional $2400 profit.

Quote:

The aluminum casing wasn't done for manufacturing/shipping/inventory. It was done to increase sales.

It was done for all of the above.

Costs less to store, ship, and inventory. Looks nicer. Allows them to dedicate more space to selling and not warehousing.

Hmm. Yeah, for the part where they alter a process that formerly needed specialists and was only feasible on a single piece basis so that it can be applied to mass production, I take that point.

Quote:

Innovation merely requires it to be new. There's no requirement that innovation be radical.[/quote/]Then we end with the question where "new" begins. If I sell the thing with a colored stripe on the aluminum part below the display, this is new. But is it innovative? Where shall we draw the line?I guess we could argue for a long time without getting a definitive answer. But the more we focus on something being merely new, the less value the word holds.Thinking about it, there might also be a cultural difference, as I'm not from the US and english is not my native tongue.

Quote:

So is using a new manufacturing technique that allows you to make new products not possible with previous techniques, or to improve previous products;

Yeah, as said above, on second thought I'll agree on the manufacturing being innovative.That does not necessarily mean the product is also innovative, though. If they use the process somewhere where it makes a real difference, then those products are innovative. But for the iMac I only see a design change and not even a big one. (That's not to say there'd be a need. The former ones looked good already.)

Innovation? I mean, I guess anything new is in some sense innovation, but the feature that these welds allows is a thinner, lighter machine, even though it is designed to be put on a desk and stay there. Thin and light is great, but at what cost?

Lower warehouse, inventory, manufacturing, and shipping costs. Reducing size and weight by a third correspondingly reduces all of the above by a third as well.

Put another way, Apple retail averages $6k per square foot. Now imagine that they can now create stores that are even smaller, thanks to smaller inventory requirements and it means they can pay less lease, open stores in smaller locations (such as smaller malls), or in their larger stores, stuff more varied inventory. Instead of dedicating 1,000 cubic feet to iMacs they can now store them in 700 cubic feet and stock, say, an additional 14,000 iPhones.

Quote:

I guess Apple is in a financial position to afford not to sell any iMacs for a few months. But it still strikes me as a high price to pay for a feature that's basically just bragging rights, and cheaper shipping costs, and not something customers will actually benefit much from.

It's their secret sauce to retail success. The less space their products take, the more product and product variety they can keep in store, the more they can dedicate their store to selling and not storing, and the smaller retail space/lease they can get away with.

Not to mention the positive environmental effects.

Give me a break... Apple does not create ANYTHING out of recycled aluminum.... There are tech industry leaders who do make many devices out of recycled plastics, IE konica minolta...

Really if you really actually think apple is in this to save the environment you are so wrong...

Who said anything about using recycled aluminum?

Apple is environmental because they use materials that are easily recyclable (aluminum, glass), not to mention desirable to recyclers. They are leaders in energy efficiency, and leaders in making their products thin and light. Thinner means more product can be packed onto the same planes, boats, and trucks, and lighter means those vehicles will use less fuel during transit. Thin and Light + sturdy materials means fewer resources can be used on each product. They are a leader in removing toxic substances from their products, and they offer a free recycling program, even for non-Apple devices. They are also in the process of converting all of their electricity use to renewable resources, including the largest non-utility fuel-cell installation in the country and a huge solar farm to power their NC data center.

Innovation? I mean, I guess anything new is in some sense innovation, but the feature that these welds allows is a thinner, lighter machine, even though it is designed to be put on a desk and stay there. Thin and light is great, but at what cost?

Lower warehouse, inventory, manufacturing, and shipping costs. Reducing size and weight by a third correspondingly reduces all of the above by a third as well.

Put another way, Apple retail averages $6k per square foot. Now imagine that they can now create stores that are even smaller, thanks to smaller inventory requirements and it means they can pay less lease, open stores in smaller locations (such as smaller malls), or in their larger stores, stuff more varied inventory. Instead of dedicating 1,000 cubic feet to iMacs they can now store them in 700 cubic feet and stock, say, an additional 14,000 iPhones.

Quote:

I guess Apple is in a financial position to afford not to sell any iMacs for a few months. But it still strikes me as a high price to pay for a feature that's basically just bragging rights, and cheaper shipping costs, and not something customers will actually benefit much from.

It's their secret sauce to retail success. The less space their products take, the more product and product variety they can keep in store, the more they can dedicate their store to selling and not storing, and the smaller retail space/lease they can get away with.

Not to mention the positive environmental effects.

Give me a break... Apple does not create ANYTHING out of recycled aluminum.... There are tech industry leaders who do make many devices out of recycled plastics, IE konica minolta...

Really if you really actually think apple is in this to save the environment you are so wrong...

Who said anything about using recycled aluminum?

Apple is environmental because they use materials that are easily recyclable (aluminum, glass), not to mention desirable. They are leaders in energy efficiency, and leaders in making their products thin and light. Thinner means more product can be packed onto the same planes, boats, and trucks, and lighter means those vehicles will use less fuel during transit. Thin and Light + sturdy materials means fewer resources can be used on each product. They are a leader in removing toxic substances from their products, and they offer a free recycling program, even for non-Apple devices. They are also in the process of converting all of their electricity use to renewable resources, including the largest non-utility fuel-cell installation in the country and a huge solar farm to power their NC data center.

Hmm. Yeah, for the part where they alter a process that formerly needed specialists and was only feasible on a single piece basis so that it can be applied to mass production, I take that point.

Quote:

Innovation merely requires it to be new. There's no requirement that innovation be radical.

Then we end with the question where "new" begins. If I sell the thing with a colored stripe on the aluminum part below the display, this is new. But is it innovative? Where shall we draw the line?I guess we could argue for a long time without getting a definitive answer. But the more we focus on something being merely new, the less value the word holds.Thinking about it, there might also be a cultural difference, as I'm not from the US and english is not my native tongue.

I'm not trying to draw a line. If we accept that the manufacturing technique is new and the design is new, and that the combination is innovative because no one else has done it before, then I think we don't have to go down the slippery slope to painting a colored stripe on the display.

Quote:

Quote:

So is using a new manufacturing technique that allows you to make new products not possible with previous techniques, or to improve previous products;

Yeah, as said above, on second thought I'll agree on the manufacturing being innovative.That does not necessarily mean the product is also innovative, though. If they use the process somewhere where it makes a real difference, then those products are innovative. But for the iMac I only see a design change and not even a big one. (That's not to say there'd be a need. The former ones looked good already.)

Edit: tagging error and also:

@ Chris ForesmanThanks for the answer

The iMac is a design change, and something they probably could have accomplished with just screws as they did before. However it was useful from a process standpoint to test the new manufacturing technology on something that only sells a couple hundred thousand a month before they use it on something that sells about a million a month, yes? That seems common sense.

When this same technology is utilized on a thin aerodynamic 17" 5lb MBP with Retina, or a 15" 4lb MBP with Retina, or a 13" 3lb MBP with Retina, and the MacBook Air drops from 3b to 2.75lb, is that "innovative"? That's the line you have to look at, not the colored stripes.

I mean, it seems 'logical', but right now no one has a 5 pound 17" laptop. The lightest I new about was 6lb.

Put another way, Apple retail averages $6k per square foot. Now imagine that they can now create stores that are even smaller, thanks to smaller inventory requirements and it means they can pay less lease, open stores in smaller locations (such as smaller malls), or in their larger stores, stuff more varied inventory. Instead of dedicating 1,000 cubic feet to iMacs they can now store them in 700 cubic feet and stock, say, an additional 14,000 iPhones.

This is all assuming that the packaging will be that much smaller. It's quite a stretch to make any assumption that Apple will be putting them in significantly smaller packages.

The aluminum casing wasn't done for manufacturing/shipping/inventory. It was done to increase sales.

The packaging appears to be smaller for the new iMacs. My late 2010 iMac shipped in a big square box. The late 2012 iMac ships in a new box, which you can see in the link below.

Between these (reported) delays and the fact Foxconn is struggling to mass produce the iPhone 5, I'm starting to wonder if Apple is pushing too far with these advanced manufacturing techniques. Yes, it's great they're bleeding edge and I appreciate that is one of the ways Apple wants to remain innovative. But at what cost?

The production delays in the iPhone 5 are part of the reason I pre-ordered a Lumia 920 last week. One of the other big factors is the reported quality issues with the 5: I keep reading customers are receiving scratched devices out of the box, and that they're not durable, and a few other issues related to Apple pushing the edge. I'm sure the vast majority are fine, but it got me second guessing the overall quality.

Another reason is that I decided a thin phone wasn't worth justifying build quality. The Lumia 920 is fatter and heavier, but it's sturdier and, IMO, better built. I would have preferred Apple built a slightly thicker phone with a better batter and sturdier design. Obviously they don't care because they're selling the 5 in record numbers, but it's a factor.

Overall point is that I would prefer Apple focused a little more on building sturdier products, even if they're not as thin. And I say that as a MBP and iPad owner.

EDIT: forgot to mention two important things-1) the thinness is sacrificing self repair and being self upgradeable, and to me that's not worth the tradeoff.2) the thin design is also sacrificing an optical drive, and to me that's also not worth it.

Indeed it can't. And neither can it be good that ever since the announcement it's been impossible even to buy the older model iMac, i.e. as this poster has said it's impossible to buy any new iMac from Apple at the moment. I called Apple the day after the announcement and they couldn't sell me one and couldn't say when they would be able to. What a ridiculous situation. This reminds me of the stock problems they used to have in the 1990s, which I thought they'd sorted out.